Critical Thinking, Logic, Reasoning and Fallacies

[Yvonne]

I've read through the whole thing now, and had some great laughs. And it has made me think...

 

"There are three kind of lies; lies, damned lies and statistics" (Mark Twain, I think)".

 

FT: As far as I can understand you want people to use the same kind of thought process - to think right? but not necessarily be comformist? I don't understand if you mean that there can be more than one answer, or that there is just one answer - the right one?

 

Who decides when there is enough data to have a "right" answer? And can the "right" answer change over time?

[wisdumn]

i believe that each person has to choose the RIGHT answer for themselves and that answer will either change or stay the same depending on the variables thrown into the particular person's life. i particularly think that on SOME fundamental levels there is only 1 correct answer but on many levels the answer has to be chosen.

[Yvonne]

Originally posted by: wisdumn

i believe that each person has to choose the RIGHT answer for themselves and that answer will either change or stay the same depending on the variables thrown into the particular person's life. i particularly think that on SOME fundamental levels there is only 1 correct answer but on many levels the answer has to be chosen.

 

I don't really understand what you mean. Do you really mean that we have should look away from research and documention and just choose if A is correct or B is correct? And if we are to choose, who should choose what fundamental levels there are only one correct answer to?

 

I personally think that decisionmaking is very hard, and that the saying - rain is caused by a butterfly flapping it's wings in the amazon - is correct.

[wisdumn]

i'm just simply saying that some things have definite answers and some do not. and no we should not ignore research and documentation because these things lead to evidence, and if we ignore evidence then we might return to the dark ages of burning the "witch" at the stake.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

08/18/2004 02:36 AM - Tormod

 

But then again I suspect you don't consider me the worst culprit here. I remember how YOU entered the forums.

 

You remember after I reminded you. Maybe that was a mistake on my part, huh? But hey, thanks for bringing it up again. Rethinking making me a Moderator now?

 

You remembered after I remembered, remember? Or maybe my brain is playing tricks again.

 

I don't need an excuse to rethink making you a moderator. You give me excuses to keep you on every single day.

[Tormod]

By the way, Irish and wisdumn - in this thread you are forgetting something very basic.

 

Yes, Irish, the site is called "Science for everyone" and not "Science for the select few."

 

But (and this is a BIG BUT!) it is called "SCIENCE for everyone", not "Daily Droolings for everyone". In the FAQ science is broadened to include "science, technology, philosophy" and then some. Yet the forums are called the "Hypography SCIENCE Forums".

 

FT and I may disagree on what correct thinking is, but we agree on one thing - that the scientific method lies at heart at everything that science is. That science is "not one thing" is also a VERY important discussion. Just read Thomas S. Kuhn's "The Structures of Scientific Revolutions" to understand the fallacy of getting bogged down in any lore - especially the scientific method. If someone spend a lifetime researching something, and then it turns out that their theories are all wrong - no matter how hard they have applied scientific methods! - they will still be wrong. But their research may have been incredible valuable, because at the heart of the scientific method lies research, testability, peer review, falsification, and theory development. Out of this comes new ideas, theses, hypotheses, and theories, which are thrown back into the loop.

 

When scientists fail to use the scientific method, they stop being scientists. They start claiming that their work "must be correct" and that everything else is "blatantly wrong".

 

That is why it is very important for this forum to teach the need to back things up with evidence. Yes, we DO occasionally (or rather often, I guess) discuss things for which there is no valid proof. But if we want to try to be scientific, we need to be able to analyse ideas, ask where does this come from, what do you base it on, where is your evidence etc.

 

One thing is people who say, "I don't have any evidence but I am very interested in learning why (this or that) may be right or wrong". They are interesting in learning.

 

The other type - the one that I claim "barges in here" - will say things like (and this is just a MADE-UP example, folks) "people thought the earth was flat a long time ago, so we cannot know that their astronomical evidence is correct. Therefore we cannot prove that the Earth is older that 6,500 years." Bang. Then some of us will bring up a point that in fact the flat earth theory was a hoax thought up in the 1800s. And the outcome of that kind of exchange is very interesting, because VERY often we then see a flame war develop, in which the "barger-inner" will feel outraged that we are even prepared to discuss his ideas, let alone go against them (or even dare ASK FOR PROOF!!!).

 

So - Irish and Wiz - before you slam our forums for trying to be a science forum and wanting to be elite, consider for a second what you are asking of us. If this forum EVER turns into something for the elite, then I'm out of here. This is a forum built on thousands of hours from both my own and others' spare time, and it was not built for any other reason than to provide yet another online forum for discussing science ideas. We do not presume to be "better" than anyone, nor "bigger" than anyone. Hypography is what it is, end of story. Like it or love it.

[TINNY]

From Freethinker:

Originally posted by: TINNY

There's a dialogue that objectively defined what is wrong and right. Basically, it is derived from the concept of evolution from the simple to the very complex in the progression of matter. Although it does assume some scientific theories as almost absolutely correct, i hope it can still provide much food for thought.

 

 

your link

 

quote:

Read the full dialogue

 

 

turns out to be some Islam religious site:

 

http://www.islamic-world.net/khalifah-project/ute1.doc

 

OK, I am checking out the link provided. Many questions.

 

Are you "Tinny Rainbird; she is eleven years old."?

 

Do you believe all this stuff? But then if you are THAT Tinny, you have no choice do you?

 

Why bother pretending this stuff is correct if the included disclaimer states that any and all is wrong if someone else says Allah says so?

 

I am not pretending that it is all absolutely correct. I just gave a suggestion, hoping that people will evaluate it and give comments.

 

Further the whole "Story" smacks of new age mumbo jumbo. Naturally the parental figures are the most intellegent and caring people that have ever existed. Such as the mother who just so happens to be the greatest physicist that ever existed and no one has ever heard of.... Ya right, OK then!

 

This has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. It's just part of the story.

 

All we find out after a long drawn out rambling story, is that the original Abrahamic Sun god Yahweh, is updated to the light god. Not as in Bud Light, but as in Mr Photon!

 

So what? It's not an argument against the assertion of defining right and wrong. I'm not promulgating Creationist thoughts in this thread OK?

 

"It is no longer intellectually possible nor logically reasonable, in light of the finding of modern physics and cosmology, to hold the view of the atheists (that there is no God). The only logically reasonable, and intellectually honest, conclusion that can be drawn from the findings of modern science is that God does exist, that the attributes of God are absolute, and that God did create the physical universe (including human life)... The scientific facts behind these interpretations represent a virtual consensus by a number of the world’s leading physicists, including several Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicists."

I'd love to see the list of "several Nobel Prize winning theoretical physicists" that believe that Mr Photon god is Allah!!!

The statement does not mention that the physicists believe in Allah. It only mentioned that the scientific facts were agreed. One of the notable physicist was John Archibald Wheeler.

 

If the facts were false, you(Freethinker) failed to mention why it was false. Instead, you just attacked the website and the writer, without disproving the arguments. (Ad Hominem fallacy)

[TINNY]

Here's the original post again:

 

There's a dialogue that objectively defined what is wrong and right. Basically, it is derived from the concept of evolution from the simple to the very complex in the progression of matter. Although it does assume some scientific theories as almost absolutely correct, i hope it can still provide much food for thought.

 

It says that the universe began from nothingness, where all the energy needed to produce all the matter in the universe was together at a singularity. The energy was so intense that it exploded, like the Big Bang. The photons of electromagnetic energy collided and formed simple atoms. Then it describes how the universe eventually ended up like it is now according to widely accepted theories. The simple atoms like hydrogen and lithium existed first, then more complex ones. Then they combined to produce molecules, getting more and more complex structurally. Eventually it arrived at replicator molecules which was the point where biological life started. Biological life progressed to the point of humans as the most developed form of matter. Throughout the progressive development of matter, every step of progress was determined by external influence, such as physical, chemical and biological laws till the point of humans. Along with matter, there was also the progression of conciousness from the simple deterministic beginning till the very complex conciousness at the human level, where conciousness was fully manifested to be able to break free from the deterministic influence of the environment, thus enabling free-will. So, logically, humans, by free-will, was to continue on the path of progression by free-will to a perfected state where free-will is fully manifested.

 

What is defined as right action is what aids in the path of progression of humans and all of existence or, in other words, the usage of free-will to act, and not under any external influence. What is said as free-will is the usage of pure logic and reason since that is the innate way of thinking by the conciousness of human beings. Wrong action would be actions that are based on external influence by the environment, since it is not in the path of material progression towards the full manifestation of free-will.

 

Read the full dialogue

[IrishEyes]

from Tormod:

You remembered after I remembered, remember? Or maybe my brain is playing tricks again.

 

Nope, on THIS one, I've got the memory for it. Unlike with the OP5 thing, this one I actually remember quoting the situation back to you. I think it was in 'our' thread, I can go check if you want. You didn't remember threatening to kick me out for calling you a bunch of pseudointellectuals, and I posted where you'd said that. But I remember that entire situation, because I walked on eggshells for months. Then was quite flabbergasted when you asked me to be a moderator. I thought it was a very cruel joke for a bit, then realized that you must not remember how I started out, and that I mis-spelled your name for almost a week (TormUd). Sorry, but this time I think your brain is playing tricks!

[IrishEyes]

08/23/2004 12:47 PM - Tormod

So - Irish and Wiz - before you slam our forums for trying to be a science forum and wanting to be elite, consider for a second what you are asking of us. If this forum EVER turns into something for the elite, then I'm out of here. This is a forum built on thousands of hours from both my own and others' spare time, and it was not built for any other reason than to provide yet another online forum for discussing science ideas. We do not presume to be "better" than anyone, nor "bigger" than anyone. Hypography is what it is, end of story. Like it or love it.

 

Well, first of all, LOVE IT! That's why I'm still here.

Second, I was not trying to slam the FORUM. I enjoy the Forum. And the Forum *IS* better than any other forum, dare you to prove me wrong!

I am not asking the Forum to be anything that it is not, nor am I suggesting that you did not bust your buns getting this Forum together.

However, as I am not a scientific person, and I do not live by the scientific method, does that mean that I am not welcome here? It DOES say "Science for everyone", yet people are very often ridiculed for their QUESTIONS, not just their assertions or statements. If you want this to be a place where new ideas are introduced, or even generated, people will need to feel free to express their ideas. ASKING for proof of their claims is much different than ridiculing an outrageous claim.

Tormod, it's YOUR site, be as scientific as you want. But don't mis-represent what the site actually presently is for what you originally intended it to be.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

Sorry, but this time I think your brain is playing tricks!

 

Yada, yada. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt if it makes you happy.

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: IrishEyes

However, as I am not a scientific person, and I do not live by the scientific method, does that mean that I am not welcome here?

 

Please, please, dear Irish, can you stop asking me that? If you don't FEEL welcome, please let me know and I'll have someone build a spa outside your home (after FT turns Hypo into a multi-million dollar operation, of course).

 

If you want this to be a place where new ideas are introduced, or even generated, people will need to feel free to express their ideas. ASKING for proof of their claims is much different than ridiculing an outrageous claim.

 

Okay, this is the core issue. Is it okay to ask ANY question in these forums? Yes. Is it okay to make ridiculous claims? Yes. Has always been. Everyone may quote me on that.

 

Is it okay to ridicule a claim? Hm. That one is a bit harder. I'd say that more often than not we do not ridicule but ask. But yes, we sometimes ridicule. Sometimes it is because the question is plain stupid (sorry!) and it has been answered many, many times before, in which case some of us may get a bit annoyed and perhaps either not think straight or simply fire off a not-so-nice answer too quickly. That does not mean it's right to do so, but perhaps it is inevitable. The first often causes the other.

 

I maintain that we have the right to ask for proof. We may discuss whether we should be more lenient on this issue. It's not like we ban people for not being able to prove their ideas. Let's discuss it - HOW do we best take care of strange questions and ridiculous claims while still making people feel comfy and welcome? It's not as easy as it sounds!

 

Tormod, it's YOUR site, be as scientific as you want. But don't mis-represent what the site actually presently is for what you originally intended it to be.

 

Point taken. The thing is, Hypography *is* very much what I wanted it to be - a place for "common" (or perhaps the right word is "uncommon") people like ourselves to ask, discuss, and learn. But it's not easy for those of us (yourself included) who maintain this site to always do the right thing. So let's keep discussing this. We all have something to learn here.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tormod

(after FT turns Hypo into a multi-million dollar operation, of course).

MORE PRESSURE!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!! MY HEART...................... (THUD!)

Originally posted by: IrishEyesIf you want this to be a place where new ideas are introduced, or even generated, people will need to feel free to express their ideas. ASKING for proof of their claims is much different than ridiculing an outrageous claim.

Okay, this is the core issue. Is it okay to ask ANY question in these forums? Yes. Is it okay to make ridiculous claims? Yes. Has always been. Everyone may quote me on that.

 

...I'd say that more often than not we do not ridicule but ask....

I maintain that we have the right to ask for proof.

Yes, this is what it comes down to. If we/ I get a serious question, no matter how far off it might be,if the INTENT of the questioner seems to be honest inquiry, I try to provide a honest open dialog. But all to often, the questions tend to be very obviously loaded with an underlying agenda. How often have we seen someone pop in here with very obvious Creationist nonsense unaware of how absurd their garbage is? They were just brainwashed by some minister pretending to promote "science" and they are now out to prove to us ignorant un-believers how stupid we are. Thus as I have stated many times... "When in Rome..."

 

Even those that think they are structuring rational concepts often start by making unfounded and unsupported assertions. Like claiming the 2nd Law has intentional PURPOSE behind it. They oftten also use any number of Argument Fallacies thinking it is PROOF. Thus we ask for VALID PROOF and try to explain what that means. Typically this is reject by the poster because they have never had to be that well structured and find the requirement destroys their stance outright.

Point taken. The thing is, Hypography *is* very much what I wanted it to be - a place for "common" (or perhaps the right word is "uncommon") people like ourselves to ask, discuss, and learn. But it's not easy for those of us (yourself included) who maintain this site to always do the right thing. So let's keep discussing this. We all have something to learn here.

I ALWAYS do the right thing. It is just a matter of what the point of reference is! :-)

[TINNY]

I think we have not considered eastern philosophy (such as hinduism, sufism, buddhism) that is not merely based on rational logic. A different methodology is used. I think it was intuition, meditation, contemplation etc... and it seeks the enlightenment of inner self; knowing the position of your self in the grand cosmos, seeking enlightenment. It is more universal, holistic, and unified with the whole cosmos. And they claim that the methodology does not reject the use of reason, but to go beyond it. But, it was quite a while ago that I read it. I'm just suggesting, hoping to give different alternatives and POVs (not just the Western system of thought) to you people.

[Uncle Martin]

Tinny,

I think this is a good point to bring to the table. It may deserve a thread of it's own. Why don't you start one?